Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
Filtering by
Description
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There are few words that have proved as controversial and dividing as these in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Especially today, it seems like every few months we are faced with a new, darker reality of mass shootings and unintended deaths. And everyone has their opinion on the matter. The primary goal of this paper and documentary, A Middle Ground, is to get to the root of the issue: what was the original intent of the Second Amendment and how has that intent changed from 1789 to today? Is there common ground for both sides of the issue? The paper describes the pre-production, production and post-production process of A Middle Ground documentary including problems, solutions and triumphs. The paper also discusses the history of the Second Amendment from its inception to its current day status in the Supreme Court. A Middle Ground follows the Supreme Court case Printz v. United States through the eyes of one of its main plaintiffs, former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack. The documentary follows Sheriff Mack from his original choice to sue the Federal Government over the Brady Bill to the Supreme Court’s decision. It also touches on the history of the Second Amendment and how Printz v. United States impacted recent historic court cases on the Second Amendment. The case also jumpstarted the individual right movement that is the most prevalent interpretation of the Second Amendment today.
ContributorsWastek, Jakob Alexander (Author) / Craft, John (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
America has been widely considered a great democratic experiment, which is a characterization attributed to Thomas Jefferson. An experiment can be designed to use trial-and-error methods to find a certain outcome. While not a conscious effort, the United States has experienced a trial-and-error experimental process in developing legislation that will restrict dangerous misinformation without violating the speech and press clauses of the First Amendment. In several of his personal writings and official speeches, Jefferson advised against additional government intervention with regard to filtering true and false information published by the press or distributed by citizens. His argument is a guiding theme throughout this thesis, which explores that experimental process and its relation to contemporary efforts to address and prevent future phenomena like the fake news outbreak of 2016.
This thesis utilizes an examination of examples of laws designed to control misinformation, past and present, then using those examples to provide context to both arguments in favor of and opposing new misinformation laws. Extensive archival research was conducted to ensure that accurate historical reflection could be included in offering information about historical examples, as well as through application of relevant literature. The possible effects on the electorate and the practices of the press by those laws of the past and potential proposals for new legislation are also discussed in an effort to provide further context to, and support for, the conclusions reached. Those conclusions include that additional regulation is necessary to discourage the creation and distribution of fake news and misinformation in order to protect the public from the violence or imminent unlawful action they may cause.
This thesis utilizes an examination of examples of laws designed to control misinformation, past and present, then using those examples to provide context to both arguments in favor of and opposing new misinformation laws. Extensive archival research was conducted to ensure that accurate historical reflection could be included in offering information about historical examples, as well as through application of relevant literature. The possible effects on the electorate and the practices of the press by those laws of the past and potential proposals for new legislation are also discussed in an effort to provide further context to, and support for, the conclusions reached. Those conclusions include that additional regulation is necessary to discourage the creation and distribution of fake news and misinformation in order to protect the public from the violence or imminent unlawful action they may cause.
ContributorsBundy, Austen (Author) / Russomanno, Joseph (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
There are certain clear-cut instances where speech is used only to harm, where the context of the situation does not affect or alter the meaning. These instances, however, are rare. The issue presented in Matal v. Tam (2017) highlights the government’s inability to, and difficulty in, attempting to prohibit assumed offensive content. This thesis argues that even in the rare and overt instances, the government is required to abstain from regulating hate speech, and that the government will not be able to successfully adopt advocate proposed hate-speech regulations. This thesis embraces the concept of precedent as the most binding force in First Amendment questions. It also begins argumentation at the most important era of First Amendment issues, and then analyzes numerous cases spanning nearly one hundred years. Utilizing case rulings, this thesis examines the American social context, as well as academic and historical writings, throughout the past century. Ultimately, this thesis finds that the decision in Matal was not surprising, and that it supports a contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence that believes in a strong divide between the government and private speech. The implications of Matal have been almost immediate, with several lawsuits being decided or brought to court based on the precedent. The decision implies that hate-speech regulations, already given little credence, will share a similar outcome to the law in Matal.
ContributorsSmith, Case Hilliard (Author) / Russomanno, Joseph (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05